It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Damning Evidence for 9/11 Conspiracy

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:36 AM
I think you guys are mistaken about watching the first plane hit.
I just watched a Larry King video from 911 and they were showing multiple shots of the second plane and even showed the collapse but there was no footage at all of the first plane hitting during that clip.

I think it didn't air until after the towers were already down.

I'll upload that video later today.

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 12:46 PM
Have a lok on this site:

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:43 PM

want to know site
8:46 AM: Bush later states, "I was sitting outside the classroom and I saw an airplane hit the tower. The TV was on.” [CNN, 12/4/01] “When we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building.” [White House, 1/5/02] There was no live coverage of the first crash on TV.

8:52 AM: Two F-15s take off from Otis Air Force Base. [Washington Post, 9/15/01] They go after Flight 175. Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, states "the pilots flew like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner. We had a nine-minute window, and in excess of 100 miles to intercept 175,'' he said. ''There was just literally no way.'' [Dallas Morning News, 9/15/01] F-15's fly at up to 2.5 times the speed of sound [1875 mph or 30+ miles a minute or 270+ miles in nine minutes] and are designed for low-altitude, high-speed, precision attacks. [BBC]

Mind blowing to say the least.
    Where was East Coast air defense?
    Was there a stand down order?

Yet, a little deeper into the F-15 intercepts:

Otis Aif Force base
Conclusion: The statements of General Myers end Major General Arnold
are in contradiction with one another. There is a discrepancy of 46 minutes.

Other than using a comma instead or a period on the web page the math seems to point out that the F-a5s were on 'cruise' and did not 'hot pursue.'
(check out the pages, there are a lot of links on both of them)

Even today, 3 ½ years after the fact spin is being put on the Otis affair
(on a far side issue)
    Base closings:

    WBZ news
    May 13, 2005 10:52 am US/Eastern
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, which launched fighter jets in response to the Sept. 11 terror attacks, is among the military facilities targeted in the first round of base closures in a decade.

    CBS News
    Particularly devastated states include New Mexico, Texas and Maine. Conversely, Oklahoma and Missouri residents cheered for their bases — and jobs — spared.

I've checked my HDs and no docs exist that far back (three HDs and three separate motherboards since
: )
so, as to who was showing what WHEN the 1st plane hit- I don't know. I do know that within 2 minutes I was watching the tower burn on CBS and an 'instant replay' was showing the crash.
CNN seemed to rule the rest of the day although they used a lot of CBS shots.

ThicHeaded said
We all know from years of hisory that no building has ever colapsed due to any type of fire, unless it was some kinda house or something..

'we' do not know this. You and many others may believe this but 'taint' so. Fire can collapse concrete (un-burnable) all by itself.

I'm not looking this up to 'prove' any point, fire itself can destroy virtually anything. Sure blast (from explosion) is devastating but fire is also. I have no doubt that the enormous amount of jet fuel dumped into building 1 caused some girders to sag and bend. With that it only took ONE floor to collapse then pancake down. I watched the collapse of the buildings and was shocked.

7th Fire
The world class architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."

Well, maybe. It is one thing to design something to do a certain thing, it is often the case that the design was 'faulty.'
Going on, the web page proclaims:

The history of high-rise building fires provides not a single case of a building collapsing due to steel beams melting from a fire.

Of course- this NEVER happened before either.

However, much is still mysterious.

This video (originally shown live on CBS) will make your jaw drop! WTC 7 is shown completely intact with fire barely even visible. Dan Rather had already informed his viewers that "CBS has learned," that the building was expected to collapse. Shortly afterwards, the bottom suddenly drops out from underneath it. Within 2-3 seconds the entire 47 story building had suddenly disappeared into a perfect and total straight down collapse! external image

warningThe above web site is very disturbing. There is some religio-mumbo jumble mixed in with a lot of supposition BUT the data will astound even the most moribund skeptic.
Back to reality?

Popular MechanicsJet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

In the American Civil War raiders routinely twisted rail road tracks with nothing more than the heat from wood fires.

Ecofore Q&A
Measurements made in several oak log fires indicated that the maximum temperature of the fire (in the crevice between the logs) was 900°F to 1200°F and that the gas just outside the flame envelope was 200°F to 400°F. A temperature of 900°-1200°F is barely the ignition temperature of the volatiles and results in their slowest reaction rates.

Take a regular cigarette lighter-
Hold a nail (steel) through the flame. Wait just a minute or two and that nail will bend like wet spaghetti.

So more 'proof' is needed.

Let's keep going

There is a lot of disinformation going on and We may be part of it!

*baloria good link

**on the French film footage- interesting that they were at that exact location to film a hit! what are the odds of that?

[edit on 17-5-2005 by JoeDoaks]

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 02:29 PM
Here's the Larry King video, live on 911:


I'm not sure the exact time it aired but it was at least 10:30am EST.
The have many, many camera angles but no footage of the first plane so I really think it didn't come out until long after the 2nd plane crash.

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 02:37 PM
The Naudet brothers, were filming a documentary on a rookie firefighter, at the time of impact.

Naudet Brothers Interviews - Post 9/11

There seems to be some questioning about the authenticity of the footage taken, although it seems that the questioning leads toward invovement in the conspiracy.

What really hit the South Tower of the WTC

In Plane Sight, I believe, is in part inconclusive, but certainly opens up for debate, a great many questions that require honest answers.

Has anyone as yet managed to find the additional footage of the North Tower strike, that was purportedly replayed to Mr Bush?

This is the real question I want answered.

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:56 PM
I would have to go with bush being dense, but then again........... he might have let out he seen the 1st plane hit..

According to 9/11 The Great Illusion... I think, There was a few cameramen arrested for videotaping the 1st plane hitting the noth tower or whatever..

THis might have been the Feed Bush was watching???? maybe???

posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:43 PM
Although i do believe that there is a whole lot more to 9/11 than is officially accepted, what that is exactly i have many possible theories.

However with this case of Bush saying he saw the first tower get hit, that's impossible because the video of it was only known about roughly 3 days after 9/11.

I honestly think that Bush was telling a little lie in order to make it sound like he was like the public, watching the horrible event taking place, and was caught in his little lie. Bush isn't the brightest guy in the world and him making a statement like that wouldn't surprise me at all.

I don't think he had some special video taping of the event, even if he had some part in orchestrating 9/11 (which im not saying he did) I don't think he would need or want to see it happen live. Plus, wasn't he in the school with kids so he couldnt have seen the first tower get hit live if he did have such a camera in place.

[edit on 17-5-2005 by Ponderosa]

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:46 AM
I haven't found info saying that the Israeli's captured that day actually filmed the first strike.

Five Israeli's were seen filming......

Five dancing Israeli's

"It's very good……. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)".

Said by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately after the 9-11 attacks, when asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations.

Come on guys, I was told there was other footage of the North Tower Strike, but it has yet to transpire. I think those who were watching live, as I was, may have confused the various views given of the second strike and thought that they were seeing the initial strike.

Without that "additional" footage, Bush seems to have given the whole game away.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by Koka]

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:20 AM
Ponderosa, take a look at the video (In Plane Sight), I couldn't believe it myself. Given the tone of his voice and the context it was said in I would have to disagree with it being a "little lie". I can't really see what purpose it would serve, as on the day, the media were actually covering the school visit he made, and a majority of people believed that the first he had heard of it was when his aid came and whispered something in his ear.

Something else I don't quite understand, is, if he new of the strikes prior to going into the classroom, why was the visit not cancelled immediately? I can understand him not bolting out of the classroom when first told by his aid, but continuing with the visit seems a little strange to say the least.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:17 AM

can you explain how you reached your conclusions, or is this just your opinion?
(Not yet finished)

If you want to know for sure beyond all reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job just download 9-11 Painful Deceptions from p2p (Shareaza)

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 07:37 AM
Or 9/11 The great Illusion, or 9/11 The Greatest Lie ever told, or 9/11 Martail Law, or 9/11 Road to tyranny, we can give a million other movies but these should do just fine...

Also on Alex Jones site he has a 9/11 section covering all kinda news articles that show without a doubt that there was prior knowldge of 9/11.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:03 AM
aelphaeis_mangarae I will look into that one, thanks.

ThichHeaded, where is the footage you promised?

Every search I have done for North Tower footage has only delivered the Naudet Brothers footage.

Proof of additional footage will knock this thread on the head.

No proof is conclusive evidence toward the conspiracy that Bush new all along that these events were going to happen, that, or he has Alzheimers and really shouldn't be in a job with so much responsibility.

[edit on 18-5-2005 by Koka]

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:21 AM
I was mistaken, the only footage I have is the one those brothers made. I was in the same situation as you were, I thought i had it but one scene looked like it wasnt, but it was after the 1st plane hit. Sorry about that one man.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:15 PM
I was at home that day and recorded as much footage as i could from the news. i started to record @ 08:35am and kept recording until I left for work in the afternoon. I havent brought myself to look at the raw footage since that day...I just knew I needed to document it. I also recorded the firefighter special that you spoke of earlier. It impacted me greatly, and I kept anything related.

I may have to make myself watch the tapes now.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 02:25 PM
He didn’t watch any film he’s just stupid, and wanted to make it look like he knew what was going on instead of looking like the incompetent fool he is

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:09 PM
Dirty, those links in your sig are fantastic!

People on this thread should partake.

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:35 PM

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
He didn’t watch any film he’s just stupid, and wanted to make it look like he knew what was going on instead of looking like the incompetent fool he is

Who are you talking about???

posted on May, 18 2005 @ 08:43 PM
Hmm... I have downloaded one of the Alex Jones videos mentioned, guess i'll watch it tonight. Although from what i've seen and heard of him, he seems a bit over the top for my complete believability, nevertheless i will check it out.

And to answer the question above me, he's talking about Bush.

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:09 AM

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
He didn’t watch any film he’s just stupid, and wanted to make it look like he knew what was going on instead of looking like the incompetent fool he is

So, he pretty much admits to being involved in the conspiracy and you think it should be dismissed and put down to his stupidity.

Don't get me wrong, I know he's a fool, but he needs to give the reason for this statement, cos' it's either a blatant lie by a small minded fool who bows to peer pressure or he knew it was going to happen.

Either way, the public deserve an answer for this highly controversial statement.

If he admits he lied to save face, the American (re)public may come to realise the error of their ways, not likely I know, as long as he serves their purpose he will remain in place.

If Blair had said something of the equivelent, I doubt he would still be in power, in fact I doubt Labour would get back in power for a very long time.

Why has this statement not been covered by the main stream media?

posted on May, 19 2005 @ 03:57 PM
I'm bumping this up, as no one has managed to debunk the aforementioned statement by GWB.

As I have mentioned previously, THIS IS DAMING EVIDENCE, if this be true, the President of the USA knew full well this was going to happen.

shadow watcher did you manage to watch those tapes, I know it must be hard, but you may have something we haven't seen, i'm doubting it, by you never know. Why did you start taping at 8:35, I thought the first hit was at 8:45?

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in